About Me

In the name of Allah (God),
I have decided to dedicate sincere and honest endeavour in helping to establish the Truth by helping to defend the good name of the last Prophet (pbuh) of Allah as well as refuting many other lies and misconceptions that are being disseminated by the insincere, wicked, deceptive, intellectually and morally bankrupted individuals as well as the ignorant individuals who all share a faulty characteristic; a blatant disregard for the Truth.
I ask Allah to purify my intentions and save me from doing any good action for self-aggrandizement, as all actions are judged by intentions. May Allah Love me, and bless this work. My message to any non-Muslim reading this is thus:
Please give Islam a chance, research it for yourself and allow Muslims and Muslim sources to be your primary resources you refer to when studying Islam rather than basing your views on agenda-motivated Islamophobic sources.
O Allah, You are Al-Wadud (The Loving)...please O Allah love me and bless all those Muslims and non-Muslims who read this.
Ameen

Sunday, 25 September 2011

How to respond to Christian fumndamentalists on the internet. Insha'Allah this erudite lecture by Muslim intellectual and scholar, Sheikh Abdal Hakim Murad (aka Timothy Winter). will help Muslims to deal with and contextualize the anti-Muslim rhetoric sputed by militant Christians on the internet.

Shaykh Abdal Hakim Murad talks about modern day christian fundamentalists and their anti-islamic attacks via the Internet or political means. He also talks about the correct muslim response

Shaykh Abdal Hakim Murad also known as Dr. Timothy Winter is a lecturer at Cambridge University and has made many contributions to islam. He also translated many classical islamic texts, perhaps most famously Rememberence Of Death And The Afterlife By Imam Abu Hamid Al Ghazali.

PLEASE LISTEN AND LEARN BECAUSE THIS IS VERY RELEVANT TO INTERNET USING MUSLIMS DUE THE FACT THAT WE COME ACROSS NUMEROUS ENCOUNTERS WITH HARDCORE CHRISTIANS.

NOTE: I combined all the 4 parts into one video. Previously this lecture was only available in split form

230 comments:

Funny lecture, nothing like hearing a BRITISH BORN BRITISH CITIZEN demonizing the EVIL United States and the EVIL FAR RIGHT CHRISTIAN FUNDIES.

Funny thing, I'm not a FAR RIGHT WING CHRISTIAN FUNDY, Niether is Pamella Geller and a slew of others that are repulsed by the oppresion of Islam.

What a crock about the Christian teaching on ISHMAEL lol.

Amazing you guys just can not help yourselves.

@13:30ish he says "THe Quranic vision is actually inclusive" LOL where when how is it inclusive. you Muslims exclude yourselves from society to the point where Eruope has to pass laws to get you Ishmalie Savages to come into society.

Islam EXCLUDES Christians and Jews making them DIHIMI Status, ISlam EXLUDES all other Relgions from open practice, ISLAM EXCLUDES Muslim woman marying who she wants.

I guess Islam is inclusing that it wants to oppress everyone who is not a Muslim. Which brings me to the next LIE.

"Where not saying that Islam divides people into these two camps"?????????????????? what LOL

"The Radical Evengelical view of history as being divided absolutly into unsaved and the saved and that outside having a personal releationship with Jesus, there is no salvation is a intolerable chalange to the love of God" WOW so much wrong in both of these two statements I do not know where to begin.

First I guess this "Oxford Islamic Lecture never heard of the Islamic teaching of the world being divided up into two camps. The House of WAR, and the HOUSE OF PEACE. Either that or he is just practicing TAQUIYA.

In his next statement al though it is true there is no salvation outside of Christ, this is not a "RADICAL EVEANGELICAL VIEW" this has always been the view of Christians from the very begging.

There is more on this statement but I want to move on because this next one is a doozy.

"A god that cares and shows mercy on his creatures doen't stuff all of Salvation into a single moment of human history." Really Why NOT?

He answers "Because thats mean" LOL HOW DARE GOD SAVE HIS PEOPLE THAT WAY shame on him the big meanie LOL

You Muslim sure do like to tell GOd what he is and what he is not, what he can do and what he can not do.

1) Why is it that the speaker expresses tolerance for everyone except for orthodox Christians?

In this guys view if you are orthodox you are a right wing hater and if you are an agnostic apostate you can be a respected "christian" scholar.

2) I appreciate his concern for proclaiming the mercy of God but am very disappointed that he does not have an equal concern for proclaiming God's holiness.

His portrayal of god reminds me of a teacher that will suspend deserved punishment simply because his students say they are sorry. Rebellious kids might say they like a teacher like that but in the end no one respects him and his actions don't show true mercy.

3) The speaker seems to think that orthodox Christians are somehow to be equated to the rich and powerful in North American when in reality the center of gravity for Bible believing Trinitarian Christianity is the poor and downtrodden in sub Saharan Africa Latin America and Asia.

If he thinks there are a lot of aggressive uncompromising Bible thumping “right wing” fundamentalists in the USA just wait till he discovers third world Christianity.

4) I never cease to be amazed at the arrogance of Muslims. Over and over again they reject God’s revelation simply because it does not suit their fancy.

You think it sounds mean or it’s unfair or it’s hard to understand so therefore you refuse to believe it.

This Guy never even bothered to engage God’s genuine word he just ignores it and hopes that Christians will as well.

Contrast that attitude with what the founder of his religion said about the Bible

Quote:

Say, "O People of the Scripture, you are [standing] on nothing until you uphold [the law of] the Torah, the Gospel, and what has been revealed to you from your Lord." Surah 5:68a

End quote;

It’s sad really that when it comes to respect for God’s genuine revelation Islam has drifted so far from it’s founder.

Dr Winter went on and on about how it was so much easier to feel close to the Muslim god

A better argument for the Anthropomorphic nature of the Islamic deity could not be made. Talk about creating a god in your own image.

It’s as if he along with the pagan idolaters said:

“I chose my god because he is just like me so it’s easy for me to feel close to him.”

A true worshiper of God would humbly say somthing like.....

quote:

Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! "For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?" "Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?" For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen. (Romans 11:33-36)

MashaAllah Yahya u have RM and FMM hooked on u like a junkie hooked on crack. lol These guys were just feening for a post while u were gone. You guys took a nice long hit very quickly as soon as he posted, bet that hit felt good after going 1 month off Yahya cold turkey. LOL

You are more correct than you know. I view it as not only a great privilege but also an divine obligation to speak the Gospel and defend the honor my Lord from the attacks of rebels and mockers.

quote:

If I say, "I will not mention him, or speak any more in his name," there is in my heart as it were a burning fire shut up in my bones, and I am weary with holding it in, and I cannot. (Jeremiah 20:9)

Job 32:18-22(18) For I am full of words; the spirit within me constrains me.(19) Behold, my belly is like wine that has no vent; like new wineskins ready to burst.(20) I must speak, that I may find relief; I must open my lips and answer.(21) I will not show partiality to any man or use flattery toward any person.(22) For I do not know how to flatter, else my Maker would soon take me away.

For if we are beside ourselves, it is for God; if we are in our right mind, it is for you. For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised. (2 Corinthians 5:13-15)

for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard." (Acts 4:20)

end quote:

You need to understand however that the Patience of God is not with out limit.

There will come a time when He ceases to stir the hearts of his servants to admonish you for your rebellion and leaves you in you alone in your sin.

I’d hate to be you when that happens.

quote:

Proverbs 1:24-29(24) Because I have called and you refused to listen, have stretched out my hand and no one has heeded,(25) because you have ignored all my counsel and would have none of my reproof,(26) I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when terror strikes you,(27) when terror strikes you like a storm and your calamity comes like a whirlwind, when distress and anguish come upon you.(28) Then they will call upon me, but I will not answer; they will seek me diligently but will not find me.(29) Because they hated knowledge and did not choose the fear of the LORD,

"His portrayal of god reminds me of a teacher that will suspend deserved punishment simply because his students say they are sorry."

What would you think of a teacher who brings his Son to crucify him, to suspend the punishment, and after that he STILL demands his students to say that they are sorry.

"A better argument for the Anthropomorphic nature of the Islamic deity could not be made. Talk about creating a god in your own image."

God in man's image is what I believe a verse in the Bible, and Christians are quite proud of that verse. Amazing how Christian apologetic evolves. We have heard over the last decades, Christians claiming that Allah is distant because he cannot be like men, eat like men, sleep like men, whereas Yahweh is close to mankind, because he suffers and died like Humans. Now FMM, has a problem with God being close to mankind. FMM is losing his last handful neurons.

Yes it's difficult for a healthy mind to believe in a God who is generated in nature, and is equal to a God who has no CAUSE.

What would you think of a teacher who brings his Son to crucify him, to suspend the punishment, and after that he STILL demands his students to say that they are sorry.

I say,

Your misunderstanding of the Trinity has once again affected your understanding of the Gospel

God does not send someone else to pay for sin he does it himself and he does not require an apology he instead graciously changes the nature of a rebellious sinner that can’t apologize and gives him a new heart that can.

The apology is just the fruit of God’s gift of regeneration.

You say,

God in man's image is what I believe a verse in the Bible, and Christians are quite proud of that verse.

I say,

Actually the verse says just the opposite.

Instead of God in man’s image. The word of God says that God created man in his image. (Genesis 1:26)

You say

. We have heard over the last decades, Christians claiming that Allah is distant because he cannot be like men, eat like men, sleep like men, whereas Yahweh is close to mankind, because he suffers and died like Humans.

I say,

Once again you have it exactly backwards God is not close to us because he suffers he suffers because he chooses to allow us to be close to him.

You say,

Now FMM, has a problem with God being close to mankind.

I say,

I have no problem with God being close to us I have a problem with refusing to worship and serve the God of scripture because you believe he is not sufficiently close to us.

Such a thing is idolatrous rebellion condemned by all the prophets

You say,

Yes it's difficult for a healthy mind to believe in a God who is generated in nature, and is equal to a God who has no CAUSE

I say,

Again with the straw men

No Christian believes in a god who is generated in nature, We believe in an eternal God who is able to enter his creation.

You say,

Now watch intellectual fireworks from FMM...

I say,

Not fireworks just basic logic and God’s genuine revelation.

But when you contrast it with the human imaginings from reprobate minds I can see how it might seem like fireworks

FMMI realized that one good way to debunk Christianity is to let you speak, it doesn't take more than 5 minutes to expose the nonsense:

According to FMM, a teacher who crucify his Son is bad. What did the Father do?

1/ "Dr Winter went on and on about how it was so much easier to feel close to the Muslim god A better argument for the Anthropomorphic nature of the Islamic deity could not be made"2/ " I have no problem with God being close to us"

Ask your fellow FMM. He started to make that comparison. May be you should advise him not to do it in the future. One Christian apologetic cannot stay consistent in a dialogue, let alone 2 distinct Christians. You are illustrating why there are so many Christianities through history.

The Christian God cannot be further from being Just: An example: A Christian beats a Muslim, the christian then repented, he was "transformed" with the Holy Spirit and turned to God. The Christian goes directly to heaven because Jesus died for his sins ( including beating up the Muslims). The Muslim go to hell because he is not a Christian. Can you tell me how your God would restore justice to the Muslim who was unjustly beaten by the born again Christian?

you wrote..."Ask your fellow FMM. He started to make that comparison. May be you should advise him not to do it in the future. One Christian apologetic cannot stay consistent in a dialogue, let alone 2 distinct Christians. You are illustrating why there are so many Christianities through history."

1milmeter it was yuo who wrote...

"What would you think of a teacher who brings his Son to crucify him, to suspend the punishment, and after that he STILL demands his students to say that they are sorry."

Really man you can not even keep what you wrote straight but thats what you get for listening to a BOOK that claims to be clear, but then claims only part of it is clear, but doesnt tell you which part is clear, and then says if you try to understand the unclear parts you have a disease in your heart, and then doesnt tell you wich parts are unclear. A book that is supposed to be the infallible word of God, yet it requires corrupt hadeeth and fallible "SCHOLARS" to explain it.

No wonder why there has been so many different flavors of Islam through out history, and so much blood shed. Each group has the correct Islam and to prove it they will kill you since it is Allahs will.

You wrote...

"The Christian God cannot be further from being Just: An example: A Christian beats a Muslim, the christian then repented, he was "transformed" with the Holy Spirit and turned to God. The Christian goes directly to heaven because Jesus died for his sins ( including beating up the Muslims). The Muslim go to hell because he is not a Christian."

What kind of a God do you worship that he can not "Transform" a sinner into repentence. My GOd can sorry yours can't.

You then ask "Can you tell me how your God would restore justice to the Muslim who was unjustly beaten by the born again Christian?"

Ahh its justice you want. Muslims always want JUSTICE, well as long as there not the ones reciviing that JUSTICE. Be that as it may, justice is restored to the one who is just since the MUSLIM GOES TO HELL along with Jews, Athiests, Hindu's Animists, Budasists and hypcrit Christians.

In Islams case a Muslim beats a Christian, there is no need for the Muslim to repent casue he did nothing wrong. And even if it was wrong for a Muslim to beat a Christian he still doesnt have to repent cause a Jew or Christian will take his share of sins and burn in the hell fire. What a nice God you have.

Radical modertae having hard time explaining the atonement dont worry radical m your not alone christian theologians have been trying to make heads and tails of this diabolical concept for 2 thosands years but still none of them can give a coherent answer just as you have demonstrated.You also should stay out of politics, i have called you out before on your wishy washy political allegiances ( like voting for obama but somehow being 5 point calvinist lol) but now you say crazy pam isnt right wing, that deserves a big lol.Thats like saying james white is a catholic or that ronald reagan was a democrat!!! Or ron paul really supports the usa's imperial crusades across the middle east. Seriously old man you just keep embarassing yourself.

Expressing your ignorance and lack of reading comprehension skills. I would say you are in rare form but these are some of the traits and qualities that all Muslims seem to share.

You wrote...

"Radical modertae having hard time explaining the atonement dont worry radical m your not alone christian theologians have been trying to make heads and tails of this diabolical concept for 2 thosands years but still none of them can give a coherent answer just as you have demonstrated."

First when did I explain the atonement? Second I do not have a hard time explaining it. Its simple..."Life is in the blood" God has "given it to make atonement for your sins" You sin you deserve death, instead of you dying something or someone else dies for your sins.

In the case before the incarnation (For brevity I'm not going to get into forshadowing) every sin had to be atoned for with the blood of bulls and goats day in and day out. The high priest never sat down.

Christ the perfect high priest with his perfect offering, offered atonment once and for all and sat down at the right hand of God waiting for his enemies (that would be you and all other godless people) to be made his footstoole.

You then continued to demonstrate those Islamic traits when you write...

"You also should stay out of politics, i have called you out before on your wishy washy political allegiances ( like voting for obama but somehow being 5 point calvinist lol) but now you say crazy pam isnt right wing, that deserves a big lol."

First you never called me out on anything my political views are for all to see. I wrote them down and posted them on the internet. Thats how I came up with the nick of Radical Moderate. I speak of them quite often.

As far as who I vote for can you show me where in the bible it says If I vote for anyone that excludes me from the Kingdom of God?

Secondly I never said that Pam Geller was not right wing, I wrote I'm not a FAR RIGHT WING CHRISTIAN FUNDY, Niether is Pamella Geller and a slew of others that are repulsed by the oppresion of Islam.

And you continue displaying those Islamic traits of willfull ignorance, lack of reading comprehension skills miss representation, and out right lying when you wrote...

"Thats like saying james white is a catholic or that ronald reagan was a democrat!!! Or ron paul really supports the usa's imperial crusades across the middle east."

I never said such a thing nor would I say such a thing. You on the other hand seem to say that Pam Geller is a Right Wing CHRISTIAN FUNDY

But hey what can I expect from a man who's follows a relgion that teaches its a sin for a woman to be treated for bleeding hemroids from a male doctor, or teaches that Christians and Jews will take the place of sinfull Muslims in hell, or that teaches all a Muslim has to do to enter heaven is go the bathroom the Islamic way.

This will be a long post pointed at radical m but first apologies i admit my short comings in misreading your comment about miss geller. Although everyone knows she is jewish and not a christians fundy,she does play all sides,in the USA it is the christians fundies she takes along for her crusade and in europe the extremely liberal seularists (geert wilders and co) who hate everythong about religion i wonder what the dutch reformers of past years would make of thier countries extreme liberalism? Although saying that the holy spirit filled reformed folk who wondered into south africa did give rise to racism and arpathied.I also have to ask why did you lump her and you together in the same sentence denying any association with far right christianity? How do you associate with a person who let a article appear on her blog suggesting that obama was bastard child of macolm x? or that he is secretly a muslim? she is not christian but she is certainly far right or as i like to call people who think like she does "israel firsters". And this were i call you wishy washy on everything regarding politics and religion. its like you support which ever group is most popular.

you stated in you reply there is nothing wrong with a 5 point hardcore fundy supporting obama. You see this is were the problem lyes because no christian fundamentalist of any denomination would ever support obama let alone a reformed one.I also refer you to your mentor mr whites vlog post the day after the presidential election were he says obama is not a christian and the very demeanour of his speech suggests he was not happy about the outcome. You see majority of the spirit filled christians on the paltalk chatrooms were convinced he was a closet muslim and all were appalled you had cast your vote in favour of him. They constantly played clips of jeremiah wright and would call both obama and the reverend right america haters.The reason i stated i called you out on your odd political allegiances is because before you used to have your blog ,were you stated your reasons for supporting obama, listed under the "my blogs section" but haven’t done so lately (probably because of the shame.)You see your problem is you delved into politics on the wrong side of your religious convictions. Will that damage your salvation? i have no idea although being a regular reader of protestant blogs were they question the faith of some of the biggest evangelicals in the sua just for different doctrines like inerrancy (mike licona), the counter reformation concept of molinism against the calvinistic idea of absolute predestination ( willliam lane craig) or norman geislers cover up of ergun caner.But i think the best example that parallels you is their utter disgust of rick perry and his faults, firstly for doing the prayer at the presidents inauguration and secondly the failure to mention jesus in the prayer.

You also stated that you never tried to explain the atonementwell the passage below will give a different view

you said

"But moving on I did wnat to get to something this Islamic speaker said in the video.

Speaking of the atonment he likened it to a debt owed to GOd, that is true.

However he then says "If someon owes me money and can not pay I have three options.

1. I can tell him it doesnt matter he still has to pay.

2. Someone else can pay it?

He then said "this would be Justice"

I agree

when dr abdul hakim murad said that the atonement is like a debt owed to God you agreed to it right?

then you list the three options he gave the second one in which you agree with, that is someone else paying for you. You then go on and state that it is not moral that God just forgives but he needs someone paying for it.(i know its not your exact words but im paraphrasing).You see you tried making a case of the substitution theory ( breifly i agree) but failed miserably and again when you gave that partial quote from leviticus 17 you failed once again. How was jesus supposed sacrifice in accordance to the rites of priestly sacrifice? it wasnt.If jesus was the final sacrifice why is it stated throughout the bible that the temple sacrifices will resume again? why is it in leviticus stated again and again that these sacrifices are to be carried out generation after generation but it never states they will be stopped or that they will be superseded by jesus?I'll go back to the quote from leviticus it also says " i have given it upon the altar to make an atonement..." if you take the blood verses at face value why not this this one? why didnt the priests slay jesus in the temple? that would definitely have been more in accordance with the priestly sacrifices. I leave you with a verse amongst the many with regards to how unimportant sacrifices are in the whole scheme of things

For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering

Ridicule Extreme: You are Touching a new record of denial: FMM started to use the "teacher" comparison. Come back when you admit that obvious fact.

Let me now expose the real problem of Christian atonement that Ridicule seems to ignore:Did God send himself to be crucified, or did he send his Son? The problem is BOTH and neither.1- The Father (God) sent his Son.2-T he Son ( God) sent himself.3- The Holy Spirit (God) did not send his Son, not did he sent himself.As long as you believe in Trinity, you have no other way other then to be a polytheist. Three Different Gods, with clear conflicting attributes.

Actually, the more I discuss the trinity, read about it and think about it the more confident I become that the Christians actually believe in three gods. Thus, the Quranic description of the trinity is correct. As long the number tree is involved and as long as the members of the trinity have their own will, there's no way around it.

No offence, but the long discussion I had with hard-core Trinitarian like the pseudo-name gentlemen “Fifth monarch man” (FMM) in this blog the more I'm convinced that they follow rank polytheism, not monotheism.

It is a logic so basic that sincere truth seeker should be easy to recognize:

Brother Eric, leave FMM if you don't know him. He will avoid your questions with just playing with semantics. You will realize that you have wasted your time. Ask rather easy and short questions, he will contradict himself in the next few posts: ( read my exchange with him). FMM jumps in the slightest ambiguity in your question, when I said the Son is generated in nature, I meeant generated in his nature, but FMM don't miss the opportunity to misunderstand your comment.

FMM disagrees that The Son is Generated, then he seems to agree.

FMM: is the Son "generated" or not?If yes , is "generated" an attribute or a role?

eric is the person on the other end of this conversation (who)and eric is human (what)

eric says

The word "God" in the Scriptures refers to the Creator, the personal identity a "who" which created the universe. You however, have created other definitions for the word God as "what".

I say,

the word God just like any word to different things depending on the context. You presupose that God must be unipersonal like you the Schripture never says that.

In fact schripture makes it clear that the one God is not like you.

And it also makes it clear that three whos (not one)created the universe.

you say,

Premise 1: There is one WHO.

I say,

Read the Bible

Start with the first chapter of Genisis. What you will find is that there are three whos not one.

The word for God is plural. God often uses plural pronouns when speaking of himself.

The Father the Son and the Spirit are each repeatedly called God. etc etc etc

To say that there is one who is to create an idol in your own image and call it god.

In your rebellion you are free to do that if you choose just like you are free to ignore God's comands about prayer and fasting but God's servants will let the Word of God tell us what God is like and what he want's from us.

Depends on what you mean because the Son is eternal and uncaused I would never use that term but in relational sense the Father is the sourse of the Son and the Spirit finds it's sourse in both the father and the Son

you say,

If yes , is "generated" an attribute or a role?

I say

"generated" in this sense is a relational term it only tells you the sons relationship to the father not his nature.

Because we are in a certin type of relationship my wife is subordnate to me but "subordnate" is not an attribute.

better yet

You believe the Quran was "generated" by an angel vocalizing it to Muhaumed and also that it existed eternally.

"Generated" in this sense is only a word to discribe the relationship the Quran has to the Angel not an attrubute of the book itself.

the trinity is pure polytheism no two ways about it. When christian apologists try to convince people its actually monotheism they play word games like FMM is doing.

Th trinity only makes sense if you believe it to be three Gods which it is and which is it is a false belief. It is christianities self inflicted wound, how ever way they try to explain it, and i applaud FMM for trying his best to make heads and tails of it,the father the son and holy spirit are three seperate individuals with three different substances. Its like a geometry student explains the dimensions of a 3d square but then wants everyone to belive its actually a sphere, that is exactly what trinitarians do they explain each different person in the trinity calling each one God but then say they are actually one being.

Also how can jesus have 2 natures? and did he explicity say that no one nows the time of the hour except the Father? if his second nature was co-equal he would have said i know but only my divine self knows not my human nature ( see how absurd this sounds but it is essentially what you belive). Why did he also say thats it was his fathers will not his? that dosent sound like two beings that are co-equal. Also explain since he went up to the father in his human form? how does it work? is the father like a human as well? what about the holy spirit? it is by far the most mind boggling and destructive doctrines the mainstream christian faith has conjured up.

eric is the person on the other end of this conversation (who)and eric is human (what)

I say:

Eric, FMM and I are three persons but one what, human. How many humans? Three. The father, the son and the holy spirit are three persons one what (divine). How many gods? Three.If the father, the son and the holy spirit are one God? then you, me and eric are one human.

"I only denied that the Son sent himself. Such a thing is a logical impossibility. "

I agree with you FMM, God cannot be the SAME one who sends the sacrifice, and the one that goes voluntarily, that is impossible. You must have TWO GODS ; the first one who sends the second. Now that makes sense.

Christians play smart games of having the cake and eating it at the same time. In one hand they insist that the Father is distinct from the Son: two different persons not to be confused. In the other hand, to face another kind of problem, they don't hesitate to confuse both the Father and Son, and say : God pays himself. not making any distinction between the one who sends and the one sacrificed.

FMM uses his intellect for a second then he switch it off. He says that one cannot send himself; it's impossible. Then he has no problem with God paying himself!!!Radical Moderate, if you have 5$, try to pay yourself, tell us how does it work.

Now FMM brings another philosophical discovery; the human nature is divisible !!

FMM now that you admitted that the Son has a Source, we, Muslims, we cannot believe one who has a source as a God. Because we already believe that God, the supreme,is the Source of everything and, by definition, cannot have a source himself. Now that you know the "mysterious" reason of our rejection of your theology, you may now excuse us not accept such foolishness.

"And it also makes it clear that three whos (not one)created the universe"

It is your choice if you want to worship Triune (Tree) Gods but you can not make a case in Genesis 1:1 to prove that God is three in plurality.

In semitic languange in this case the hebrew, the language of the Jews, we discover that they never understood Elohim to imply a plurality in God in any way.

Hebrew scholar William Gesenius comments:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim:

In the Hebrew Bible Elohim אלהים, when meaning the God of Israel, is mostly grammatically singular. Even in Genesis 1:26 "Then God said (singular verb), 'Let us make (plural verb) man in our image, after our likeness'." Elohim is singular. Gesenius and other Hebrew grammarians traditionally described this as the pluralis excellentiae (plural of excellence), which is similar to the pluralis majestatis (plural of majesty, or "Royal we").

In Arabic, other semitic language, the concept of the majestic plural with the masculine plural ending (dhammir muttasil) also present

e.g. in Islamic greeting

"As-Salamu Alaykum" which means "peace be upon you (plural)"

instead of

"As-Salamu Alayka" (the singular masculine ending)

it is understood as show of respect and majesty

In literal translation the word Elohim means GODS.

So

if you want me to accept your trick please be honest and translate Genesis 1:1 as:

This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about you are insisting that the divine nature must be like human nature.

I say:

Not so fast. It has nothing to do with the divine nature must be like human nature. It has to do with logic. If you have three entities belonging to the same class, let's say chairs, then you have three chairs. Simple logic. You said that God can't send himself because it defies logic. The same applies here three whos that are devine are three gods. So what you're saying is that the trinity is a mystery and can't be comprehended.

This leaves us with the father in reality being superior to both the son and the holy ghost since he hasn't a source. By the way that gives rise to yet another contradiction they're all equal. Talk about believing in a religion whose foundations are nonsensical. The quran was right all along: don't say three. As long as there are three in there somewhere it's polytheism.

If the Son were to express omniscience during the incarnation the sacrifice of Jesus his would not be genuine. In order for Jesus fulfill his role as the Covenant head of his people he had trust that God would honor his obedience.

If he was all knowing during his time on earth trust would be impossible

In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence. Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered. And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him, (Hebrews 5:7-9)

If you have three entities belonging to the same class, let's say chairs, then you have three chairs. Simple logic.

I say,

Take a look at this..

Quote:

Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. (Genesis 2:24)

End quote:

Here you plainly have two “whos” a man and his wife, and yet they are one “what” a flesh.

This is not illogical it's just the nature of covenant. God's very being is personal and covenantal.

You say,

You said that God can't send himself because it defies logic. The same applies here three whos that are devine are three gods. So what you're saying is that the trinity is a mystery and can't be comprehended.

I say,

No just like the flesh in Genesis 2God is one.

It is a mystery but it can be easily comprehended by someone who is willing to submit his thinking to the Word of God and not remain in a state of idolatrous rebellion by insisting that God be monopersonal just because he is.

You have no problem with the logic of marrage yet you say you have a problem the logic of the Trinity.

I can only conclude that your problem is not with the logic it’s with God.

In semitic languange in this case the hebrew, the language of the Jews, we discover that they never understood Elohim to imply a plurality in God in any way.

I say,

There you go again reading your presuppositions into the Word of God. The word is plainly plural yet you believe no one ever thought it was plural. God uses plural pronouns yet you believe that it’s not even possible that he means what he says.

Again you sound like Bill Clinton playing with words. There is no a single word that can’t be explained away by a crafty rebel

I’m sorry but like we have already discussed words are defined by context .

You need to read the Bible in context not as a collection of random proof texts to support your own opinions bending the language everytime it gets in your way.

You say,

In literal translation the word Elohim means GODS.

I say,

Here is what happens when you excerpt so much effort in redefining words you end up claiming a word means Gods but is “never understood to imply a plurality in God in any way”

So it "never" is plural except when it is plural.

I guess it all "depends on what the definition of is is"

Come on Eric. Do you really think this sort of tactic will convince anyone?

In all your examples you are just playing with words. The Mississipi river is certainly CAUSED by Minnesota 's mountains, and Minnesota's mountains are the source of the Mississipi river. You are picking different words to avoid the obvious contradiction. What is the Source of X, is the cause of X.

The father and the Son have each one a UNIQUE role, thank you, now who created the Universe?

Orange Juice is the source of Vitamin C but no one would say that orange juice is the cause of or is in any way superior to vitamin C.

Minnesota is the source of the Mississippi river but no one would say that Minnesota is the cause of or is in any way superior to the Mississippi river.

My water faucet is my source of clean clear water but it would be silly to say that my water faucet is the cause of or is in any way superior to clean clear water.

I say:

First of all you compare earthly objects to God. I thought you couldn't do that, or does that only apply to your counterpart in the discussion.

Secondly, you are comparing apples and oranges. These are all inanimate objects without any agency. When an animate object with agency is the source of something then it either precedes it and/or is superior to it. You christians are the ones who insist on calling the relationship that of a father/son relationship.

Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. (Genesis 2:24)

End quote:

Here you plainly have two “whos” a man and his wife, and yet they are one “what” a flesh.

When a Muslim says the man and his wife are 2 persons but still 2 human beings, FMM responds We cannot make the comparison because Human Nature is divisable. That was few hours ago. Now FMM, using the Bible, proves himself wrong and that two persons can be one.

Can you tell me FMM, the man and his wife, how many flesh were they, physically, before marriage?

FMM understand the Mystery of the Trinity, but he cannot count how many bodies he sees in one man and his wife. FMM doesn't make the difference between Physical meaning of ONE and figurative meaning. Or he is faking not to know.

For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole, as He Himself acknowledges: “My Father is greater than I.” In the Psalm His inferiority is described as being “a little lower than the angels.” Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son

God has been in the business of revealing himself to man since the time of Adam. Sometimes he choose to reveal a little bit sometimes more. His final revelation in the person of his Son was long before Tertullian’s time.

Christians from the beginning have struggled to articulate what we experience when God chooses to reveal himself to us by the election of the Father through the sacrifice of the Son by the power of the Spirit.

This was happening at the beginning and is still happening today.

Tertullian was a man just like any other man and as such he is capable of error and capable of being misunderstood and taken out of context.

I have no idea what Tertullian is trying to get at and I don’t really care. It’s possible he is talking about the Incarnation or he is emphasizing the Son’s subordinate role or it could be that he is just in error

It does not matter to me one way or the other.

I’m one of those right wing Bible thumping fundamentalists you won’t impress much me by quoting a man.

quote:

To the teaching and to the testimony! If they will not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn. (Isaiah 8:20)

"So what is the source of the Missippi river again?"Whatever it causes it to flow.

I say,

Wow I give you dictionary definitions and multiple examples and you still insist on defining the word incorrectly.

I could not find a better example of truth suppression if I tried.

Talk about proof positive of the truth of Romans 1.

quote:

For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, (Romans 1:21-22)

"If the Son were to express omniscience during the incarnation the sacrifice of Jesus his would not be genuine. In order for Jesus fulfill his role as the Covenant head of his people he had trust that God would honor his obedience.

If he was all knowing during his time on earth trust would be impossible "

O dear, do you think this sort of explanation will convince any truth-seeking people?

God incarnation!? sounds Hinduism to me man..

You dont seem to read the Bible.

According to the Bible God knows all things (1 John 3).

It means forever. It doesn't say God knows all thing at some point.

But you claim that God nature was changed by inacarnating with human nature.

So God in your imagination has multiply personalities. One person all -knowing, who is nonetheless 100% God who must therefore know all things. This latter “individual” who is also 100% God is rather short in memory and suffer amnesia not knowing information about the date of the end of the world.

Well I am personally confused, but let everyone judge whether this makes sense.

My awesome God Never be a contradiction, ...Subhanallah ...Glory be to God

I invite you to free yor mind from false concept of polytheistic God and come to the understanding of the haneef حنيف true monotheism the way it was taught by father Abraham (p)

“He is the One God: God the Eternal, the Uncaused Cause of All Being.

He begets not, and neither is He begotten; and there is nothing that could be compared with Him.” (Q 112)

"There you go again reading your presuppositions into the Word of God. The word is plainly plural yet you believe no one ever thought it was plural. God uses plural pronouns yet you believe that it’s not even possible that he means what he says. "

Well I guess FMM playing God to say that those are my presuppostion did I ever say that?

In case of Hebrew's Elohim I never claim that *no one* ever thought it was plural. I know that people like you with polytheistic doctrine is keen to say it was plural in meaning.

Howerer I pointed out great Hebrew scholar, Wilhelm Gesenius (considered as highest authority on the Biblical Hebrew) wrote that Elohim was meant singular when it denotes God.

When you accept a faith please do not just be blind faith. Learn it in original language and from its original source.

I am a muslim so I learnt Arabic and read the holy book (the Quran) in its original language before I learn any other second language.

So maybe you should go for confirmation of this and ask the Jews as to whether this imply three Gods.

Then you present an unbelieving language twisting screed that is supposed to show that the Bible does not mean what it clearly says…………..

So I guess here we go again.

Quote:

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Philippians 2:5-11)

And....

But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering. (Hebrews 2:9-10)

end quote:

your move.

you say,

I'd rather believe words found in the scriptures Clearly says

‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.”

I say,

Well that is a least a start I glad claim to accept at least one Biblical truth although you have imported your rebellious presuppositions into even this text

The Shema is one of the foundational truths of the Doctrine of the Trinity. If you would just accept God’s revelation in context you would understand what this verse means

He worshiped the Father (John 17).He was called man (Mark 15:39; John 19:5).He was called Son of Man (John 9:35-37)He prayed to the Father (John 17).He was tempted (Matt. 4:1).He grew in wisdom (Luke 2:52).He died (Rom. 5:8).He has a body of flesh and bones (Luke 24:39).

*********

But at the same time he was God:

*********

He is worshiped (Matt. 2:2,11; 14:33).He was called God (John 20:28; Heb. 1:8)He was called Son of God (Mark 1:1)He is prayed to (Acts 7:59).He is sinless (1 Pet. 2:22; Heb. 4:15).He knows all things (John 21:17).He gives eternal life (John 10:28).All the fullness of deity dwells in Him (Col. 2:9).

These are the sorts of things you will discover if you abandon your rebellion and read the Bible in context

Muslims it is not enough that you quote passages in the bible that prove that Jesus was a man of flesh in bone. WE CHRISTIANS BELIEVE THAT. YOu are preaching to the Choir when you say Jesus was a man. We say AMEN. Instead you must answer these questions that speak of Jesus Divinity.

So here are the qeustions you must answer.

1. Was it Mohamed or any prophet who saved the peole out of Egypt, parted the Sea of Reads, destroyed those who did not believe and destroyed Saddam and Gammorah. Does Mohamed or any prophet keep Angles who have rebelled against God in eternal Chains in gloomy darkness until the judgment day? (Jude 5 ESV)

2. Will you call Mohamed or any prophet the "AUTHOR OF LIFE". (Acts 3:15)

3. Is Mohamed or any prophet equal to the Allah?(John 5:19)

4. Can Mohamed or any Prophet do what ever Allah does?(John 5:19)

5. Does Allah show Mohamed or any Prophet ALL that he is doing?(John 5:20)

6. Can Mohamed or any Prophet give eteranl life to who EVER HE WANTS TO?(John 5:21)

7. Do you give the same HONOR to Mohamed that you give to ALLAH? OR can you give the same Honor that you give to Allah to any man?(John 5:23)

8. If you do not give the same Honor to Mohamed or to any Man that yuo give to Allah, are you dishonnoring Allah?(John 5:23)

9. Will the Dead hear the voice of Mohamed or any Prophet and all those that hear will live?(john 5:25)

10. Does Mohamed have LIFE in himself as Allah has life in himself? Is Mohamed given the authority to GRANT LIFE TO WHOM EVER HE SO DESIRES TO GRANT IT TO?(John 5:26-27)

Now just a FYI, it is not enough for you to respond with "Yes it is the message of the Prophet at his time that gives eteranal life." That is not what Jesus is saying he does not say "It is my message or it only in my time".

He is saying that it is HE that does this "HIS VOICE" that the dead in the tomb will hear" etc...

Eric, a piece of advice don't treat the bible as one coherent book as you do when you refer to it as scripture. The bible was written by numerous people over a long period of time. That's why you find so many contradictions. Some of these contradictions clearly involve the nature of God.

Just because some writers of the NT clearly held blasphemous hellenistic beliefs about God doesn't make them true, my dear friend FMM.

I for one don't doubt that there are passages in the NT that seem to equate Jesus with God.

The amazing thing is that you have only scratched the surface. The references to Christ‘s divinity are everywhere in the Scripture both the Old and New testaments.

One of the reasons that I repeatedly invite Muslims to actually read the genuine revelation of God in context is that when they do they will find not a Unitarian Muslim tract that has suffered a little corruption here and there but a full blown Trinitarian tour de force.

It is no wonder that history shows that when people abandon the Trinity they very quickly abandon the scripture as well.

Once a Muslim honestly looks at the Torah and the Gospel I can’t see how they can possibly say that their book is in anyway similar to the true Word of God.

Is it any wonder that the approach of modern Islam is so different that that of their founder.

Quote:

And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the wrongdoers. And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah; and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light and confirming that which preceded it of the Torah as guidance and instruction for the righteous. And let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient.

Sura 45b-47

End quote

Instead of admonishing people to judge by the Torah and the Gospel modern Muslims like Timothy Winter use the arguments of agnostics to try to cast doubt on the scriptures

If people actually judged by the Torah and the Gospel there would be no Muslims

It does not surprise me that you would level a charge of blasphemy it has been a favorite tactic of the enemies of Christ from the beginning see (Mat 26:55, John 10:33, Mark 16:46 etc etc).

In fact Jesus warned me that you would do this sort of thing (Mat:10:24-26)

I am a little surprised however that you charge the Apostles with Hellenistic thinking given that it’s Islam’s story of a double taking the place of Jesus at the cross that is directly drawn from Greek myths.

Quote:

The eiolodon (double) is systematically used in Greek literature to solve theological problems related to myth and its interpretation. This simple device of the hero’s double solves the problem of an unworthy behavior on the part of the (usually divine) hero, or of his (or her) intolerable fate, without suppressing the mythical story altogether.

There was a time in the world, when Idolatry was debunked by simply pointing out the limitations of the Idol, Christians have lost that argument for ever. You can be a stone, but that won't prove that the stone is not God.

Yes, I agree with you that the bible was written by numerous people over a long period of time. It is somewhat like my position on the hadith which (because it was the work of fallible man) not all are considered genuine some can be qudsi, mutawatir, dhoif etc.

On the Bible we have today my position is that the Quran is revealed to clean up the false teaching and human tampering that exists in todays "Bible". So whenever I encounter a text it contradicts the Quran it can not be true Divine Revelations.

After all of the long years I spent in reading this official "Bible" we have today I still believe it contains some Divine Revelations in it but at the same time it also contains man's fabrications and lies in it.

Then you present an unbelieving language twisting screed that is supposed

to show that the Bible does not mean what it clearly says"

You claim that, (take full attention please):

" Jesus has two natures one human and one divine.. "

Please provide with verse in the Bible which says that Jesus have two natures God and Human!

(Unless you are able to do that your claim is just a hollow rhetoric, a presuppositions of man-made teaching)

Instead

You come up with a list of the verses in isolation that seems support God-man fallacy.

For instance you cited John 20:28

It really amaze me how you can not use brain to understand that a shocked Thomas was merely exclaiming, “My Lord and my God.”

There is no mention of the God-man in the context, and there is no reason to believe that the disciples would have even been aware of such a belief.

I notice you have problem in providing evidence with what you claim. Not long ago I ask you to show me the verse in the Bible which Jesus ever said that "I am God and worship me" which you failed to prvide until now.

Now Im begging you to tell me where in the scriptures which *CLEARLY* says

"On this very blog we have Lobo saying he does not doubt the authors of the NT are blasphemous and at the same time Eric does linguistic gymnastics to deny that the NT ever presents Jesus as divine."

Strange, I cant agree more with El Lobo regarding the Bible being a book full of contradictions nor I disagree with him that writers of the NT had been influenced by blasphemous hellenistic belief.

I am here to try to invite you to give up this blasphemous hellenistic idea by using elements in the scriptures which as I understand it still retain genuine inspiration (the Injil or the Gospel of Jesus(p) ) by using the last revelation God give to mandkind (the Quran) as the criterion and understand it in proper Tauhidiyyah (Monotheistic) context.

It is up to God the Almighty as to Whether or not you eventually will receive this invitation and we become brother in faith or God let you have hardened hearts and a rebellious spirit.

I am a little surprised however that you charge the Apostles with Hellenistic thinking given that it’s Islam’s story of a double taking the place of Jesus at the cross that is directly drawn from Greek myths.

I say:

Well the bible was written in greek, the first christian communities were in greek speaking areas. Rather strange given that the writers two of which allegedly disciples from a humble background decided to either write in greek (how on earth did they know greek) or recounted the events to a scribe. Why greek? Weren't the disciples tasked with preaching to the lost sheep of Israel?

Concerning Jesus not dying on the cross, does the Quran really say Jesus was substituted with someone else?

Moreover, it's rather far fetched that our prophet would have been influenced by hellenism when in fact he lived in an area with a different sphere of influence.It's much more likely that a bunch of greek interpreted the NT according to their world view in which God habitually took human form and had sons and daughters. How else explain the blatant break with OT monotheism for which the Jewish people were famous in world where many gods were worshiped.

The Bible is not like that. It is not a just a list of doctrinal pronouncements strung together with no internal structure or context.

It contains stories and parables and poetry and complex argument it has context you can discover what it’s about simply by comparing one part to another.

I could demand from you specific verses that said things like

"Paul corrupted the Gospel""Muhammad was the final prophet""You must pray 5 times a day"

I say:

Nice try. The NT can be clear about these things which are fundamental to your concept of God. It can be clear on these things and still contain all the things you listed.Last time I checked "Paul corrupting the Bible" is not a central aspect of understanding the nature of God. As for the other two straw men they are sufficiently dealt with in the prophetic tradition.I want to stress that when I say that Paul corrupted the Bible I'm not saying that it actually was a man that fits his description. That would be slander. He might have been a true believer. It's rather the person who wrote the epistles attributed to him. It's important to make this distinction since we all know that some of the epistles are clear pseudographs or to use Ehrman's label FORGERIES!

What do you mean by WE? All Christians except the 1 billion catholics? Find me one Muslim who kissed the black stone in your neighbourhood. The whole Catholic worship is kissing stones, while believing it has power. Why do you think Christians kiss a a cross made of Gold or silver?

Orthodoxy teaches that the incarnation of Jesus makes it permissible to venerate icons, and even necessary to do so in order to preserve the truth of the Incarnation. Indeed, following from the Summa reference above, the veneration of icons is mandatory; to not venerate icons would imply that Jesus was not also fully God, or to deny that Jesus had a real physical body. Both of these alternatives are incompatible with the Christology defined at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 and summarized in the Chalcedonian Creed.Radicale, clean your house first.

Significant periods of iconoclasm (deliberate destruction of icons) have occurred in the history of the Church, the first major outbreak being the Byzantine iconoclasm (730-787), motivated by a strictly literal interpretation of the second commandment and interaction with Muslims who have a very strict teachings against the creation of images

One more thing, have you noticed that the things Christians attack nowdays such as whether islam is monotheistic and the preservation of the Quran are exactly those things that are the main weaknesess of Christiantity.Mud rake, what do you call that the shuffle something?

"Find me one Muslim who kissed the black stone in your neighbourhood."

There are no muslims who live in my neiborhood. I live in a Sharia free comunity. But I do knmow three personaly who have foundled the and kissed the rock of the Kabba. I also know of a few others who tried to get close to it so they could kiss and foundle it. When I asked them why they all said the same thing "No reason I just felt I had to do it".

so just becasue you cant get to Mecca or even if once your thre you can not physicaly get to the stone because of all the other Muslims pressing and jocking for position to fondle the black stone. Does not mean you do not desire to do it.

Ridicule Mod. is like many Christians, who are desparate to push away the accusation of Idolatery, well rooted in Christian history, use tactic of deflection. They know very well that the concept of Tawheed is the purest monotheism in existence, and it's the unmovable bedrock of Islam. So they accuse Muslims of the same accusation, and of course, without any foundation. Muslims don't believe any stone has power, While in my Catholic country, every Christian here believes that the Statue of Mary in front of their homes, has protection power. Every Catholic on earth is eager to bow the knee before the Pope.

Radical , be a good Christian, accept the The Second Council of Nicea in 787 ( Seventh Ecumenical Council ). Icon worship is mandatory. You deny that God can be a physical Icon? How dare you! loool

What ever cahtolics do or do not do, does not take away that Muslims from all over the world desire to kiss and foundle a black rock. For no other reason then your prophet imitated what pagans where doing.

Whats even worse is that the desire the need the LUST is so great that people will trample on others to get to it, they will crowd and press up against a mass of bodies in the hot Arabian sun for hours running around it in the hopes of being able to touch and kiss it. The stench alone from so many bodies in the Arabian sun would be over powering to most people. But to Muslmis the desire to tuch and kiss it over powers the stench.

Fifth Monarchy Man tries to make a parallel between a Book of unknown Authors ( sometimes forged documents), and the Hadiths ( the highest historical authenticity). Can you give me a parallel between the Book of Hebrews, which nobody knows its author, and any Hadith you want.

Because Christianity is a missionary religion and Jesus is the savior of the world not just one small nation

Greek was the lingua franca of the world at that time. Just like English is today everyone spoke Greek even the residents of Palestine.

If a man could read the Torah in first century Palestine he would have been able read Greek as well because that is the language the Septuagint was written in.

You say,

Weren't the disciples tasked with preaching to the lost sheep of Israel?

I say,

No they were sent to the whole world.

Quote:

And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, (Matthew 28:18-19)

End quote;

By the way did you catch the Trinitarian language of this command

The disciples were to baptize in the name (singular) of the Father Son and Holy Spirit

Like I said the Trinity is found everywhere in the scripture

you say,

It's much more likely that a bunch of greek interpreted the NT according to their world view in which God habitually took human form and had sons and daughters.

You say,

To the Greeks God was the impersonal transcendent prime mover.Plato was so concerned to separate God from creation that he had to postulate a demiurge to do the actual dirty work of creating the phyiscal world so that the true God would not get his hands dirty.

At the same time the Greeks had a whole pantheon of lesser deities much like the Islamic Jinn It’s these characters that were constantly sneaking around and defiling the woman folk not God

This is nothing like Christianity

It was God the Word, the Creator of the universe the very Author of life who took on human flesh.

And God did not procreate with anybody the Word is eternally the Son. It was Greek Influence that lead Mohammad to this misunderstanding.

If you want to find a preChristian world view that would believe that One True God who created the universe has the ability to interact personally with his people the only place you‘ll find it is in Judaism.

Ridicule has asked ridicule questions:Questions 3 about Who is equal to allah 19 Jesus gave them this answer: “Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.Ridicule quotes a verse that shows Jesus dependency to the Father, and want us to believe he was like God.

An answer to all your 10 questions in one sentence. Do ye not know that the SAINTS SHALL JUDGE THE WORLD? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?”1Corinthians 6:2

Now see what the eloquent Sam Shamoun has said about judging the world:

If the NT writers believed that Jesus is God we should not be surprised to find them ascribing these very Divine functions (that is the function of Judging) to the risen Lord.”

Now You should agree that the Bible give very vague standard about what are Divine Attributes and functions. Conclusion: The Bible is the last book to look in, to judge who is God.

The Divinity of Jesus is not the last problem that a Muslim would find in the Bible. The list goes beyond your short understanding.

The NT can be clear about these things which are fundamental to your concept of God. It can be clear on these things and still contain all the things you listed.

I say,

It is clear as witnessed by your labeling it as blasphemous

you say,

As for the other two straw men they are sufficiently dealt with in the prophetic tradition.

I say,

So you can dismiss my request for a clear statement on these issues vital to Islam with a "they are sufficiently dealt with" brush off but demand specific wording from the mouth of Jesus to before you will submit to the clear teaching of the Bible on the nature of God

Are you really so blind as to not see the blatant hypocrisy of your position?

And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah; and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light and confirming that which preceded it of the Torah as guidance and instruction for the righteous. And let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient.

Not to be rude or anything, but it's sad how some Christians here resort to using laughable analogies (orange juice and the Mississippi river) to explain the fundamentals of their own faith and these same Christians spend the majority of their time attacking Islam in order to feel better about their beliefs.

I don't understand why God would want me to follow a Religion that has logical contradictions straight off the bat. Islam just makes more sense than Christianity. There isn't any of this 3 in 1 and Jesus' blood as salvation nonsense in Islam.

Since Christians won't believe what the Quran says about Jesus being a Prophet, The Noble Quran tells Christians to look at the Gospel regarding these disputes. When we look at the Gospel we see very little evidence to support the statement that Jesus (Eesa peace be upon him) is God. We see a Jesus who prayed and worshipped God, who was not all knowing ("none know the hour except the Father") and who was only sent to a specific nation (the lost sheep of Israel). When we accept that Jesus was a messenger like both the Gospel and Quran point out, things begin to make much more sense.

Trying to portray Jesus as this divine god-like entity just raises more problems than it solves.

waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.

Declare these things; exhort and rebuke with all authority. Let no one disregard you. (Titus 2:13-15)

End quote;

You say,

I don't understand why God would want me to follow a Religion that has logical contradictions straight off the bat.

I say,

First of all it is not your place to judge God. If he reveals something that your finite mind can’t reconcile it does not matter it‘s your obligation to believe it

full stop.

That being said The doctrine of the Trinity and the atonement are not logically contradictory.

If you think there is a contradiction why not bring it forward and we can discuss it.

Claiming something does not make sense to you might say something about your intellect but it does not say anything about the doctrine in question.

You say,

When we look at the Gospel we see very little evidence to support the statement that Jesus (Eesa peace be upon him) is God.

I say,

That is the question at hand is it not?

Myself and billions of Christians who have actually read the Bible in context would very much disagree with your characterization of what we find there.

You say,

Trying to portray Jesus as this divine god-like entity just raises more problems than it solves.

I say,

I agree that is why Christians don’t portray Jesus as a “divine god-like entity”

Fifth Monarchy ManSurah 5 starting from verse 44 tells what Jews and Christians must judge, according to WHAT God has revealed IN the Gospel and the Torah; Just law and judicial punishment. It's disingenuous to take out the context and say that it speaks about theology.

This is theology:

" Further that He may warn those (also) who say "Allah hath begotten a son": (4) No knowledge have they of such a thing, nor had their fathers. It is a grievous thing that issues from their mouths as a saying. What they say is nothing but falsehood! Surah Al Kahf

You think that only catholic are stone worshipers? " The Second Council of Nicaea is regarded as the Seventh Ecumenical Council by Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Eastern Catholic Churches and various other Western Christian groups

@Monarchy Man"The Bible does a fine job of defining the fundamentals of my faith for those who have eyes to see."

No it doesn't. On the contrary, it actually does a dismal job at explaining the basis of your faith, such as the Trinity. In fact, it mentions nothing about it at all, which is why most of the time Christians will resort to using vague and implicit verses from the bible to try and explain something that Jesus didn't even preach in the first place.

If God's intention was to teach the Trinity and divinehood of Jesus through the Gospels, then it really was a feeble attempt at it.

"There is no need for analogies for those who have personally experienced the new birth by God the Spirit paid for by God the Son according to the election of God the Father. "

The problem with this whole 'I feel The Holy Spirit' and 'historical evidence' argument is that it can never be a substitute for tangible proof. Your personal experiences/dreams/hallucinations don't constitute as evidence for your faith, neither does an incident that supposedly occurred over 2000 years ago.

"First of all it is not your place to judge God. If he reveals something that your finite mind can’t reconcile it does not matter it‘s your obligation to believe it"

Well I would agree with you there. Allah swt makes it clear that we shouldn't ask questions regarding clear teachings in our faith.

"That being said The doctrine of the Trinity and the atonement are not logically contradictory.

If you think there is a contradiction why not bring it forward and we can discuss it.

Claiming something does not make sense to you might say something about your intellect but it does not say anything about the doctrine in question. "

However, the Trinity itself is not a clear teaching, as it's illogical to believe that there are 3 separate Gods who compose only 1 God. No matter how you try to spin it or what analogy you throw, you're still worshipping 3 Gods. You made the claim earlier that the bible is clear in it's teachings of the fundamentals of your faith. If so, then please show me a clear verse in the bible that states God is part of a Trinity consisting of him, Jesus and the holy spirit. Show me a clear, explicit verse where Jesus orders Christians to worship him as God, alongside the spirit and father.

"Claiming something does not make sense to you might say something about your intellect but it does not say anything about the doctrine in question. "

Allah says in the Quran that he gave us rational thought to distinguish between truth and falsehood. Why would he have it that I follow an irrational concept of God? I think it speaks volumes of your scripture if so many of your scholars are having a hard time distinguishing the fundamentals they should be adopting in Christianity. You have knowledgable Christians such as Jay Smith still having a hard time explaining the Trinity and still trying to figure out which parts of the bible are revelations and which are man made alterations

"Myself and billions of Christians who have actually read the Bible in context would very much disagree with your characterization of what we find there."

And the billions of Muslims/Christians reverting to Islam who have read both the bible and Quran would disagree with you. This still isn't a convincing argument.

I appreciate you taking the time to respond, but please excuse me if I don't respond back. I don't really feel like going through every single argument Christians and atheists make.

So woe to those who *write the "scripture" with their own hands* (يَكْتُبُونَ الْكِتَابَ بِأَيْدِيهِمْ), then say, "This is from Allah ," in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn. (Q 2:79)

We do not care who and how many people have contributed to the forgeries.

It is not in Islamic teaching that Paul is the one who did the corruption but rather prominent figures in the west like

How we establish a prayer, this is dealt within the Manual of Fiqh As-Sunnah/A-hadith of prayer with clear examples ( I can give the steps of prayer (As-salah) with corresponding daleel in a-hadith if you are interested ) nothing subtle about it

If the Son is dependent upon anything, then by Islamic standards, he cannot be God. I think you have hard time understanding my example: The Quran teaches that God is the only Judge of the world. The Bible gives the Saints Divine attributes. We believe it's Shirk. So Where the Bible says that Jesus has divine Attributes, it would be just another Biblical fallacy. In other words, showing us where Jesus has special divine attributes proves to us NOTHING.

Ok then you have just proven Islam to me I am goig to take my Shahada now.

"I believe that there is only one God Allah, and he has shown Mohamed everything he can do, and Mohamed can do what ever allah can do. Allah gives life to who pleases, and Mohamed gives life to whom he is pleased to give it."

"FMM on failing to provide evidence to what he claim about the God-man "

The only one who has failed is you and 1milmeter, 1milimeter attempted to asnwer one of my questions but FAILED. YOu have failed to answer any of them. So I will repeat them for you.

1. Was it Mohamed or any prophet who saved the peole out of Egypt, parted the Sea of Reads, destroyed those who did not believe and destroyed Saddam and Gammorah. Does Mohamed or any prophet keep Angles who have rebelled against God in eternal Chains in gloomy darkness until the judgment day? (Jude 5 ESV)

2. Will you call Mohamed or any prophet the "AUTHOR OF LIFE". (Acts 3:15)

3. Is Mohamed or any prophet equal to the Allah?(John 5:19)

4. Can Mohamed or any Prophet do what ever Allah does?(John 5:19)

5. Does Allah show Mohamed or any Prophet ALL that he is doing?(John 5:20)

6. Can Mohamed or any Prophet give eteranl life to who EVER HE WANTS TO?(John 5:21)

7. Do you give the same HONOR to Mohamed that you give to ALLAH? OR can you give the same Honor that you give to Allah to any man?(John 5:23)

8. If you do not give the same Honor to Mohamed or to any Man that yuo give to Allah, are you dishonnoring Allah?(John 5:23)

9. Will the Dead hear the voice of Mohamed or any Prophet and all those that hear will live?(john 5:25)

10. Does Mohamed have LIFE in himself as Allah has life in himself? Is Mohamed given the authority to GRANT LIFE TO WHOM EVER HE SO DESIRES TO GRANT IT TO?(John 5:26-27)

Now just a FYI, it is not enough for you to respond with "Yes it is the message of the Prophet at his time that gives eteranal life." That is not what Jesus is saying he does not say "It is my message or it only in my time".

He is saying that it is HE that does this "HIS VOICE" that the dead in the tomb will hear" etc...

Where did you say that Jesus was God? Where you denied the divinity of the Saints, who will judge you. Try to work out how would you make the difference between Jesus and the saints when you die. Oh yes, you have a hint, blue eyes blond hair. lol

“it is the only one which gives a fair interpretation to the declaration that the saints should judge angels in 1Co_6:3. If asked “in what way” this is to be done, it may be answered, that it may be meant simply that Christians shall be exalted to the right hand of the Judge, and shall encompass his throne; that they shall assent to, and approve of his judgment, that they shall be elevated to a post of honor and favor, as if they were ASSOCIATED with him in the Judgment.” (Barnes’ Commentary on 1 Corinthians 6:2)

Christians must judge, according to WHAT God has revealed IN the Gospel and the Torah; Just law and judicial punishment. It's disingenuous to take out the context and say that it speaks about theology.

Mahdi said

Since Christians won't believe what the Quran says about Jesus being a Prophet, The Noble Quran tells Christians to look at the Gospel regarding these disputes.

I say,

So once again we have a profound disagreement between Muslims about a central question having to do with an explicit command of the Quran.

All the while the Christians here are in total agreement about what the genuine revelation says about God.

If you Guys can’t agree about an explicit statement like this. It is patently obvious that you would find a way to not submit to a explicit “I am God worship me” command from Jesus.

I never said it did. I said that you don’t need analogies when you have personally experienced the Triune God

You say,

neither does an incident that supposedly occurred over 2000 years ago.

I say,

The evidence for my faith is God’s genuine revelation. not an incident.

You say,

the Trinity itself is not a clear teaching, as it's illogical to believe that there are 3 separate Gods who compose only 1 God

I say,

That is not the doctrine of the Trinity and no Christian believes that.

I find it to be amazing that you can reject a doctrine that you can’t even articulate correctly

You say,

then please show me a clear verse in the bible that states God is part of a Trinity consisting of him, Jesus and the holy spirit.

I say,

quote:

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. (2 Corinthians 13:14)

There is one body and one Spirit--just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call-- one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ's gift. (Ephesians 4:4-7)

Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone. (1 Corinthians 12:4-6)

end quote:

You say,

Show me a clear, explicit verse where Jesus orders Christians to worship him as God, alongside the spirit and father.

I say,

There you go demanding that God do exactly what you want before you will serve him. Even after you have demonstrated that you can’t agree on the meaning to a text you consider to be clear

The fact that Jesus never spoke about being God is powerful proof that he was never God in the first place. And how is it a red herring? It's a huge issue here we're discussing.

"But you have no problem realizing that the statements that Jesus made about himself where statements either ONLY GOD could make or a liar and a blashemer."

So Jesus claiming that nobody knew the hour except the Father in heaven was evidence of his divinity? What about when a sick person touched Jesus and he became confused, was that God who became confused? When he told the woman that he was only sent to Israel, was that God talking? Who sent God to Israel and why was he only sent there?

"I find it to be amazing that you can reject a doctrine that you can’t even articulate correctly"

Don't play this game with me. It's the same game many missionaries play. The whole "you just don't understand what Christianity teaches", before throwing logical fallacies to confuse people who don't know any better.

"Jesus is God, The Father is God, The Spirit is God, and these 3 separate Gods are 1 God".

Mahdi said: "Don't play this game with me. It's the same game many missionaries play. The whole "you just don't understand what Christianity teaches", before throwing logical fallacies to confuse people who don't know any better."

...and then hilariously Mahdi proved his point better than he ever could by immediately following that with:

"Jesus is God, The Father is God, The Spirit is God, and these 3 separate Gods are 1 God".

It's fascinating. Muslims seem to think it's ok for them to tell Christians what they "really" believe rather than letting Christians define their own beliefs.

Mahdi, I don't think you could accurately present the beliefs of Christians even if you had a map, a compass, and Jesus himself standing next to you.

If you have no problem in admitting that three distinct persons are each one of them God, what prevents you from saying three distinct Gods? In other words; if one person is fully God, and another distinct person is also fully and completely God, what prevents you from saying these are TWO Gods?

And We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture and as a *criterion* / Ar. muhayminan (مُهَيْمِنًا) over it. So judge between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations away from what has come to you of the truth. To each of you We prescribed a law and a method. Had Allah willed, He would have made you one nation [united in religion], but [He intended] to test you in what He has given you; so race to [all that is] good. To Allah is your return all together, and He will [then] inform you concerning that over which you used to differ. (Q 5:48)

God is saying in his genuine revelation that:

HE has revealed to Muhammad (p), the Book (accusative masculine noun اسم منصوب) the Qur’ān, with the truth (bi’l-haqq is semantically connected to anzalnā, ‘We have revealed’) confirming the Book that was before it as a *criterion* / Ar. muhayminan (مُهَيْمِنًا) over it, testifying [to it] — the ‘Book’ (genitive masculine noun اسم مجرور ) means the Scriptures. So judge between them, between the People of the Scripture, if they take their cases before you, according to what HE has revealed, to prophet Muhammad (p) and do not follow their whims, deviating, away from the truth that has come to prophet Muhammad (p).

When the Qur'an or authentic hadith uses the terms the Injeel(لْإِنجِيلَ) ie Gospel it is about the original revelations sent to Jesus (p).

So if I quote NT scriptures it is not because I believe that those verses are that same actual Injeel/Gospel that God revealed to Jesus (p).

I dont believe that the book of NTs are divine in the first place.

However I believe is that parts of the original revelations sent down to Jesus (p) (the Gospel) may still resonates in the the collection of books called Bible today.

And I believe (as the holy Quran speaks about) that scribes came and wrote things in it from their own and claimed that it was from God. They then went and mixed their own writings with the original revelations (Gospel) and removed and added to them.

"The fact that Jesus never spoke about being God is powerful proof that he was never God in the first place. And how is it a red herring? It's a huge issue here we're discussing."

I will answer that by the following please try to be honest in answering.

"I believe that there is no GOd but ALLAH, and Mohamed is his son. Allah shows his son Mohamed all that he can do, and Mohamed can do all that Allah can do. Allah gives life to who he is pleased to give, and Mohamed gives life to whom ever he wills to give it to. The dead will hear Mohameds voice and come out to live, those that have done good to ever lasting life, those that have done bad to eternal punishment. What ever you ask Mohamed in his Name he will give it to you."

I already know that Muslims could never say such a thing. But my question is WHY NOT? WHAT THE ABOVE SAY?

Now on to your other nonsense,

Its funny you sure do waist a awfull lot of energy running from the truth. But I will answer, something you are unwilling to do.

Demonstrating half of what we believe and thinking it is a refutation of what we fully believe You wrote...

"So Jesus claiming that nobody knew the hour except the Father in heaven was evidence of his divinity?"

Answer yes Jesus as the incarnate flesh the GOD MAN, is completely dependent on The Father and the Spirit. If the Father through the spirt choses not to share that information with the Inarnate Son, that does not mean he is not divine, it just demonstrates what we believe. 1, That the incarnate Jesus is dependent on the father and the spirit. and 2. There are three distinct perosns in the GOD HEAD.

Now on to your attacking your own GOD. You wrote...

"What about when a sick person touched Jesus and he became confused, was that God who became confused?"

So I guess Allah was confused when he asked mosses "What do you have in your hand" he didnt know it was a staff."

You then go on with...

"When he told the woman that he was only sent to Israel, was that God talking? Who sent God to Israel and why was he only sent there?"

The FATHER who is GOD sent the SON who is GOD, it is JESUS who is talking who is GOD IN MAN,

As to why he was only sent to the Lost sheep of Israel, it is becasue the Lost sheep of Israel are his PEOPLE, and he only saves HIS PEOPLE, your on your own with ALLAH, good luck with that.

Maybe I should have asked what should I as a Christian do with a text originating from Jesus’ closest companions less than a decade after his ministry claiming to be the authentic Gospel that makes it clear that the quran is not the word of God.

you say,

When the Qur'an or authentic hadith uses the terms the Injeel(لْإِنجِيلَ) ie Gospel it is about the original revelations sent to Jesus (p).

I say,

So what you do you if what Jesus’ closest companions claim to be the Gospel makes it clear that the Quran is not the Word of God?

You say,

I dont believe that the book of NTs are divine in the first place.

I say

I understand but you say you believe that they are analogous to the hadith.

The text I’m talking about is ironclad there is absolutely no doubt that it originates with the closest companions of Jesus.

If it was a hadith it would be universally accepted as authentic.

What would you do with such a text?

Keep in mind what the Quran says about Jesus’ disciples..

Quote:

O you who have believed, be supporters of Allah , as when Jesus, the son of Mary, said to the disciples, "Who are my supporters for Allah ?" The disciples said, "We are supporters of Allah ." And a faction of the Children of Israel believed and a faction disbelieved. So We supported those who believed against their enemy, and they became dominant.

I believe that there is no GOd but ALLAH, and Mohamed is his son. Allah shows his son Mohamed all that he can do, and Mohamed can do all that Allah can do. Allah gives life to who he is pleased to give, and Mohamed gives life to whom ever he wills to give it to. The dead will hear Mohameds voice and come out to live, those that have done good to ever lasting life, those that have done bad to eternal punishment. What ever you ask Mohamed in his Name he will give it to you."

I already know that Muslims could never say such a thing. But my question is WHY NOT? WHAT THE ABOVE SAY?

Because we are good at Math, in the above BS that you uttered, we can count two Gods, Allah and his Son. So we won't buy it until we loose our Mathematical skills. loool , what a clown!!!

By the way, my question to anonymous was asked by a very old Christian authority. I did not invent it. The Christian "Ablabius" Asked that same same question and he was confused.

Now you have confused me. I don't understand how you could think that statement is saying there is TWO GODS. It clearly says that there is NO GOD BUT ALLAH?

When you make an explicit statement about God being ONE, then you follow it by saying another ONE , distinct from the first, who can do all what the first One can do, then you are guilty of henotheism at least.You still don't get it, Biblical standards are too loose comparing to Quran. The Saints of the Bible are described in a way WE DON't ACCEPT . So don't mix apple and Oranges.

"When you make an explicit statement about God being ONE, then you follow it by saying another ONE , distinct from the first, who can do all what the first One can do, then you are guilty of henotheism at least."

The reason I am confused is that I read and re read my statement numerous times, and I do not see where I ever wrote that the "SON" in that statement is GOD or is A GOD or even said he should be "WORSHIPED"

SO can you tell me how you came to the conclusion that the "SON" is God or A GOD?

I hope you can clearify your statements. Maybe Mahadi or Erick would like to chime in and help you explain it.

Radical Mod keep beating the dead horse. I already conceded that, by giving Divine function to anybody, you are elevating him in the status of God. Since the Bible has a long list of Human beings having divine functions, that criterion, BY BIBLICAL Standard, is VOID. Keep the beating the dead horse ridicule Moderate

"I already conceded that, by giving Divine function to anybody, you are elevating him in the status of God. Since the Bible has a long list of Human beings having divine functions, that criterion, BY BIBLICAL Standard, is VOID. Keep the beating the dead horse ridicule Moderate"

So then you do not need the exact words of "Where did Jesus ever say he was God and to worship him"? Is that correct?

What about you Mahadi, Erick or Lobo? It seems that 1milmeter is smart enough to realize that the standard of "Show me where did Jesus ever say he is god and to worship him?" Is a red herring, and strawman etc... Since 1milimeter could figure it out I'm sure you guys can too.

"Since the Bible has a long list of Human beings having divine functions, that criterion"

Can you show me where any humanbeing claims or is claimed about him to be

1. To be the UNIQUE ONE OF A KIND ONLY SON OF GOD?

2. That THe father shows any human being all that he can do?

3. That any Human being can do all that the father does?

4. That any Human being can GIVE life to whom ever he is pleased to give it?

5. That the dead will hear the voice of ANY HUMAN BEING and come out of the grave to life eteranl, either in hell or in heaven?

6. That you are to Honor any human being the same as you honor the father, and if you don't then you are not honoring the father.

7. That you are to ask in any persons name for anything and it will be granted.

BTW since you could not figure it out, when the bible refers to the SAINTS, it is not refering to speical human beings that have been elevated to a special place. It is refering to CHRISTIANS. In other words I'm a Saint as is FMM. You on the other hand are not.

Show me where did Jesus ever said he was God, is still very valid argument. Since there is no equivalent of an explicit claim of being God. Since Yahweh was never shy of claiming I am God, we expect God to be consistent. Of course , consistency is something very alien to you. Now tell us, why The Saints are not God, just some few more PERSONS sharing the BEING of God? A hundred persons in one being is even greater than just 3 persons. loool

SO let me get this straight. You rightly claim that my new and improved Shahada makes Mohamed GOD, so you were able to recognize that by saying those things that in fact the person saying them was equating Mohamed to be GOD.

Those same things are what JESUS did infact say. So therefore Jesus was CLAIMING TO BE GOD.

Now you say that asking where did Jesus say he is god and to worship him" is still a vallid argument becasue the pre incarnate Jesus said in the Old Testement that he was GOD.

So why is it a vallid argument to ask "WHERE DID JESUS SAY HE WAS GOD" when in fact you recognize that he doesnt have to say those words to claim being GOD?

So I guess then you beleive that CEASER is GOD, the FIRST EMPEROR of CHINA is GOD, and that all the Pharo's were GOD? If not then why not, they all said those explicit words "I AM GOD".

No on to your next accusation, you keep accusing but never proving any proof.

I challanged you to show me where anyone has claimed the things that Jesus claimed. You can not so instead you come up with this false accusation.

You wrote..." Now tell us, why The Saints are not God, just some few more PERSONS sharing the BEING of God? A hundred persons in one being is even greater than just 3 persons. loool"

Answer they are not GOD, because unlike Jesus no saint would ever claim the things that Jesus claimed for himself. Because to do so would be Blasphemous.

Yes we do judge the Angles (messengers) and we do judge the world. Are standard of Judgment is CHRIST's WORDS. That is how we know that your messenger is false and that you as part of the world are condemed for the words that you reject.

Radical m says "im a saint..." looooooooooool. The rcc and eo churches have to decalre who is a saint and who is not but radical m and his ilk declare themselves saints. Wow talk about arrogance.

Anyway since jesus is compared to melchizedek and this mysterious figure is supposed to have no father or mother,nor begining of days or end of life (hebrews 7) is this guy God? I should also mention that in the dead sea scroll 11Q13,this person has divine attributes and mayb e some kind of God.

The problem christians have in defining the trinity is that because it is so obviously tritheism,they have to use mental gymnsatics to make it sound like the the strict monothiesm of Moses and the prophets of old.

I have been doing a bit of reading of the athanasian creed and it is as contradictory as any christian who has tried to explain the trinity.

Example, the creed reads

"The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated; nor three infinites, but one uncreated; and one infinite."

After mentioning the father,the son and holy ghost as uncreated,eternal and unlimited beings the creed says it actually is one uncreated,unlimited and eternal being. Who ever authored the creed is doing a fine job of double speak. The person goes on in the same vain about the the three persons being almighty and God but not three almighties and three Gods again misleading people into believing the trinity is actually monothiesm when it is actually tritheism. Its like a geometry student explains the dimensions of a pyramid but wants everyone to belive for some reason or another that its actually a triangle.

The quote below is taken from the site i have pasted here:

http://www.berith.org/essays/tritheism_and_christian_faith.html

"From the Muslim perspective, all trinitarian Christianity is tritheistic. To the Muslims, the assertion that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Spirit is God can only mean that Christians believe in three gods. The logic is understandable. If Christians believe that there are three who are called God, then Christians believe in three Gods. The fact that Christians also claim to believe in only one God simply appears to be a contradiction."

The author ( a calvinist) is honest enough to admit the muslim objections of the trinity is logical and he goes onto say that the reason we do not belive is beacuse we are not christians of his variety. But some on this thread would have people believe all you need to do is read the bible and the co-equality of the trinity is there plain and simple.

The webiste that i have copied on to this post is very honest about how many explanations of the christians concept of the trinity can be viewed as tritheism in other words polythiesm. It is also eye opening that many people of the christian faith have deemed other christian peoples explanation as outright tritheism. For example here http://www.calvin.edu/academic/philosophy/virtual_library/articles/clark_kelly_j/trinity_or_tritheism.pdf

Was jesus of the new testament the God of the OT? certainly not and this has been shown on this thread. Do some parts of the 4 Gospels especially the one according to John show him to have some sort of divinity? yes but it does not mean he is( the gospels are very late especially john whose long discourses do not appear in any of the synoptics).The gospels were being written when people thought there were God men everywhere. So it is not suprising that many of the Gospel writers who had no first hand connection with jesus just belived whatever was being said about him. in the book of Acts people thought that paul and his companion were Gods come down from heaven (14:11).The idea that jesus was 100% man and 100% God is contradictory because of lots of reasons, one being God is unlimited and man is not. So it does not matter that some passages may describe jesus as having divine qualities it just strengthens my view that the gospels are not God breathed and are not reliable. That the teachings of OT AND NT are not compatible and that in no way is the God of the OT same as the new testament one ( ALTHOUGH THE BOOK OF REVELATIONS COMES CLOSE).

"Was jesus of the new testament the God of the OT? certainly not and this has been shown on this thread."

Jesus is the God of the OLD TESTMENT. WHere was that shown not to be the case on this thread?

You continue...

"Do some parts of the 4 Gospels especially the one according to John show him to have some sort of divinity?"

No the Gopsles show him to be fully divine, to be GOD. you cant be a little bit pregnent and you can not be a little big GOD.

You continue...

yes but it does not mean he is( the gospels are very late especially john whose long discourses do not appear in any of the synoptics).

And you keep running your mouth...

The Gosples ware not late they are very early and John was composed before 70 AD

You continue to flap your gums

"The gospels were being written when people thought there were God men everywhere."

Three of the Gosple writers where 1st century Jews, who would not of and did not beleive in a Man GOD. Second the Gosples do not teach and we Christians have never believed in a MAN GOD.

More nashing teeth...

"So it is not suprising that many of the Gospel writers who had no first hand connection with jesus just belived whatever was being said about him."

Mathew and John had first hand knowlege, Mark had second hand directly from the mouth of Peter, and Luke was a historian who investigated the claims. Interviewing those who had first hand knowlege.

You continue..."in the book of Acts people thought that paul and his companion were Gods come down from heaven (14:11)."

Yes and Peter rebukes them says to them "DO NOT DO THAT WE ARE MEN LIKE YOU" they do not say the things that Jesus said.

You continue on

"The idea that jesus was 100% man and 100% God is contradictory because of lots of reasons, one being God is unlimited and man is not."

No sir your concept is contradictory. You are arguing that the unlimited GOD can not take on the limited form and nature of limited man. There by you have limited your view of GOD.

You continue...

"So it does not matter that some passages may describe jesus as having divine qualities"

You recognize that the bible discribes jesus in his own words as having divine qualities, yet you and others ask "Where did Jesus say I am GOD".

In other words you have just proved that the question is as insincear as the questioner.

"it just strengthens my view that the gospels are not God breathed and are not reliable."

No sir you look for reasons to disbelieve you make up new ways to do evil.

That the teachings of OT AND NT are not compatible and that in no way is the God of the OT same as the new testament one

And you base that on what, the fact that you do not believe, you set a standard that explicitly can not be met. But when you acknowlege it is met you disregard that proof by claiming that it proves the bible wrong?

You conclude...ALTHOUGH THE BOOK OF REVELATIONS COMES CLOSE). The book or Revelation, does not just come close it is spot on as are all the other books of the NEW TESTMENT.

Oh i wish i hadnt mentioned radical m at the beggining of my post,that might of saved him the embarassment of posting that complete nonsense he thinks is some kind of rebuttal to my post.

The gospels are late.People belived in God men.Jesus was not 100% God and 100 % man. Just 100 %man.I do not limit God, it is just against his nature to turn into a man or any other creature. God is not a man... numbers 23:19.Jesus was limited,didnt have all knowledge, supposedly died which would render him of all divine attributes.The OT and NT are not compatible.For example the book of hebrews claims that the blood of bulls and goats can never take away sins but the book of leviticus says otherwise. It also says the law was faulty but the OT would disagree.Anyway you look at it,its not hard to reason why the likes of marcion of sinope loved paul and took the view that the OT nd NT Gods were completely different

@FMM My first post was about how incoherent the concept of the trinity being a monthiestic belief is. my second post was that jesus cannot be God of the OT and that jesus cannot be 100 % God and 100% man.I have also commented on yahyas latest post about the incompatibilty of the OT AND NT. feel free to take up which ever topic you feel like.I will also add i will only respond if i think yours or even RM'S( DOUBT IT)warrants one.

1. The question "Where did Jesus say he was god and worship me" is a strawman/red herring. Since as he pointed out the Words of Jesus spoken by him about him cleary state that Jesus is God and commands worship.

2. The quesiton in itself demonstrates just how insincear the questioner is when it comes to the truth. Because as 1milimeter has proved again, it does not matter even if we where to show him that Jesus said those exact words, he still would not beleive.

The trinity in my view is a polythiestic belief,specifically it is trithiesm.

My point,when i say that the trinity is in coherent, is that it is only incoherent when trinitarian christians say it is a monothiestic belief.

What is monothiesm? it is the belief in One absolute eternal God who has no equal (Surah Ikhlass).

What is the trinity?The trinity is explained by the anonymous author of the so called Athanasian creed.

That there resides within the Godhead three persons. The father, the son and the Holy spirit.The father being eternal,the son being eternal and so is the holy spirit. They all are Gods but it is not three Gods but one!!!The father is God but is not the son or the spirit. The son is God but is not the father or the spirit and same goes for the spirit.That there is three Gods. but that is not the end of the absurdity,The son apparently becomes man and dies!!! how can a eternal being die? and if he is not eternal than he is not God!!The trinitarians must also belive that this human God went up and sat at the right hand of the father!! if they are the same substance, how does it work?? is the father also flesh and what about the spirit?you see the above conundrums would make sense if you take the mormon,arian or even the jw views but not the strict monothiestic view as held by the old prophets.

Maybe you dont need to act misterious and tell us what text are you refering to and talk about and how you conclude that the text talk about the Quran.

I am interested if you can back up this ironclad claim as serious (non fundie) scholars agrees that the book of gospels were not written by the authors attributed to them and had names attached only in 120-140 AD and that we don’t have the originals of any of the books of the New Testament only copies of centuries later from Jesus (p) ministry.

Do you have the Sanad the information provided regarding the route by which the content of (the text you claim is authentic) has been reached?

Muslims are not in the business of dealing with authenticity of the books you call the Bible now but Im interested to know if you can show me authentic copies of manuscripts and scrolls available which Jesus (p) claimed to be God, or he tell his followers to revere him as God.

The Quran Surah 61:14 affirm that Jesus were strengthened and became victorious over those who disbelieved.

What it meant that because eventually the Quran was going to come down and confirm what the truth is and reject humiliation of Jesus (p) true message by man-god who died in the cross theology (Pauline teachings.) (Q 4:157)

God said that those who believed in Jesus were strengthened and became victorious over those who disbelieved it meant that because eventually the Quran was going to come down and confirm what the truth is. It came down to confirm what the true revelation of Jesus Christ was and that those who truly believed in the original teachings of Jesus were strengthened in status and made victorious because the truth has finally come to confirm that they were on the true path.

So we strengthened those who believed from the two tribes of Bani Israel over their enemies, those who disbelieved in Muhammad peace be upon him for what he came to attest to them, that is that Jesus is the slave of Allah and his Messenger, and to expose the lies of those who say that he is God, and those who say that he is the son of Allah the Most High, so they (the believing tribe) have been made victorious over the disbelieving enemies.

Our Prophet (p) had shown us the example of congeniality to have dialogue with Christians. Most notably with the Christians delegation and their Bishop of Najran from Southern Arabia and the letter the Prophet sent to Negus the Christian King of Abyssinian (Ethiopia).

Even God Almigthy open a kind of dialogue to the Angels at the time of appointment of vicegerent on earth.

And [mention, O Muhammad], when your Lord said to the angels, "Indeed, I will make upon the earth a successive authority." They said, "Will You place upon it one who causes corruption therein and sheds blood, while we declare Your praise and sanctify You?" Allah said, "Indeed, I know that which you do not know." (Q 2:30)

I think Muslims too must follow this and establish a dialogue with the Christians based on respect and sincerity.

God Almighty in the Holy Qur’an says, “Nearest to the Muslims in love wilt thou find those who say, ‘We are Christians’: Because amongst them are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant” (Holy Qur’an, 5; 85).

(Not the like of fundie Radmod and other Islamophobes who show arrogance and simple-mindedness in this blog. They dont want dialogue they just hate Islam.)

But when it come to theological dialogue Al hiwār A l-lāhutī (الـحـوار الـلاهـوتـي ) muslims position is clear

Say, "O People of the Scripture, come to a word that is equitable between us and you - that we will not worship except Allah and not associate anything with Him and not take one another as lords instead of Allah ." But if they turn away, then say, "Bear witness that we are Muslims [submitting to Him]."

what do christians mean when they say triune? its in the creed aswell.trinity in unity,although saying it dosent mean it is so.

I say,

I don't understand

Are you saying that Christians are lying when they say that they believe that the One absolute eternal God who has no equal exists in three persons or are you saying that it is impossible for one what to consist of three whos?

"Are you saying that Christians are lying when they say that they believe that the One absolute eternal God who has no equal exists in three persons or are you saying that it is impossible for one what to consist of three whos?"

The word "lying" is to strong of a term and and implies it is done on purpose. I do think you are decived by the concept of the trinity being a monothiestic faith.

Your last question is impossible,unless you belive that the three whos are three Gods which they are in trinitarian belief.example a family is a "what" and consisting in that family are three "whos" father mother and son.One family consisting of three whos, this cannot work for a God who is eternal and has no equal.

I would also like to add, by taking a leaf out of the book of hebrews and playing the "shadow" game, in numbers 23:19 God clearly lays out that he is not a man nor the son of man, this is a prophecy or a "shadow" ,as the book of hebrew likes to play it, that in the future people will claim to be God but do not believe them ( im not saying jesus did but main stream christians do claim it about him).